Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iota and Jot

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iota and Jot

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per my vote opinion in the AfD debate for esoteric programming languages that they should mostly be kept. This is one of the few that is turing complete I have found on the 'pedia. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I don't think these languages are notable. JIP | Talk 09:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MichaelBillington. The fact that it is even more minimal then brainfuck but is still turing complete, gives it interest to computer science from a theoretical standpoint. Jumbo Snails 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I don't think that most esoteric languages have the notability that's needed to belong in wikipedia, however the simplicity combined with the Turing completeness of this one makes it interesting enough that it could make the cut. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of esoteric programming languages are Turing-complete. It's difficult to create a somewhat useable language that is not Turing-complete. Turing-completeness should absolutly not be a criteria for deciding wheter or not to include an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, As a student of computer science, I believe that although these languages may not be practical for actual use, the knowledge obtained from the study of such languages can highly beneficial to anyone who needs to understand language theory. The loss of any programming language, algorithm, or proof, even if esoteric, is (in my opinion) a horrible thing. Indeed, a case could be made that any piece of information, product, or idea is useless, and we could choose to include only 'widely accepted' and ubiquitous items in wp (of course, useful, widely accepted, and such criteria would have to be defined by someone, and likely their definition would be different from many others'). This information *is* information, and I see no reason to suppress it, unless it can be demonstrated harmful, and also demonstrated to be in no way beneficial. --Adam Choate (RareJuliet 16:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC))
  • As a student of computer science I agree with the first sentence of your rationale. A requirement for inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia is wheter or not secondary sources have previously been published about it. To my knowledge there have not been any on Iota and Jot. This language should be preserved for future generations on the author's webpage (or a copy of it at archive.com), not in Wikipedia. —Ruud 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This article has been a tiny stub for two years now. DanielCristofani 05:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable esoteric language, the merit of it is irrelevant. Equendil Talk 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Turing tarpit. Notable enough to be mentioned there, but not enough for its own article. — Tobias Bergemann 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being "interesting" and "not harmful" are not criteria for article inclusion; notability and good-quality verifiability are. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.